Re: [TLS] Justification

[Marsh Ray <[e-mail]>]

On 5/12/2010 1:42 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:36:27AM -0700, Michael D'Errico wrote:
>>
>> Whoa, changing the Finished computation?  I understand that that
>> would work, but we weren't even willing to do that to solve the
>> exploitable MITM-thru-renegotiation problem.
>
> Paul Hoffman proposes an extension to add inputs to the Finished message
> computation.  There's no objection yet to Paul's proposal on the grounds
> you state.

I'm not sure the discussion got that far, so it's not evidence of much.

> In any case, one of the problems with the caching extension as proposed
> result from not binding the cached objects to the Finished message,
> which at the very least complicates the security analysis of the
> protocol, and possibly compromises it altogether.  We MUST NOT make the
> same mistakes we've made before.

Agreed, but we should be just as careful not to make new ones.

Sorry if you explained this earlier, but how would the "use URLs"
approach be different than an arbitrary server-chosen identifier?

- Marsh